111–120 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is merely a consequence of SEO. Have you tried searching for recipes? It's absolutely miserable. I don't need irrelevant life stories-- show me the ingredient list and instructions.
I get the long content for SEO, but what I don't get is why the recipe isn't right up top. Or there isn't just a link at the top that says "take me to the recipe".
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
I mean I don't know what else to say besides the fact that Bloomberg itself deserves all the blame for having a reporter compensation scheme that rewards article's that "move the market". https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa... It's like a fire chief coming out and saying I don't like the state of our neighbourhood after implementing firefighter pay per size of the fire.
Personally, I don't think paying journalists bonuses based on market moves a bad idea. Sure, there's sometimes misaligned incentives, but you could say the same about any compensation scheme.
The point of the chief editor is so true that I'm surprised to read that from them. I have noticed that a lot of times with this kind of web media. - You have a clickbait title like this: "How a normal guy managed to hack WallStreet with a simple pen" - Then, you have one page of interesting introduction on the topic but without the reply to the title question. "In november 2018, WallStreet was busy with the introduc…
This is merely a consequence of SEO. Have you tried searching for recipes? It's absolutely miserable. I don't need irrelevant life stories-- show me the ingredient list and instructions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the long content for SEO, but what I don't get is why the recipe isn't right up top. Or there isn't just a link at the top that says "take me to the recipe".
As you scroll that's more opportunities to show you ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should have been sued, and not from a being petty perspective. Libel laws are a huge part of what keeps the media trustworthy. I'm also curious why they were not sued, and tbh that makes me wonder...
Libel usually requires publishing something that you know is false. I'm inclined to believe that the reporter/editor thought the story was true for whatever reason (and sufficiently so that they doubled down at one point). Presumably any "evidence" was of a nature that they couldn't make public for some reason, e.g. shielding sources. To be clear, I'm definitely of the belief that this was a screwup even if the repor…
I'm all for journalistic freedom and anonymity of sources; I'm not saying they have to unmask their sources but they definitely have to be able to provide - confidentially to a judge or a mutually agreed upon third party - something to substantiate their allegations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the…
And IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always trying to publish things ASAP over trying to publish something that is interesting, informative and/or factually corrective.
“Enterprise stories” are where reporters take the time to learn something rather than just rewrite a press release or someone else’s reporting. This type of reporting has been under pressure for years because it’s expensive and media budgets are very tight. This editor-in-chief is saying the clicks don’t justify the expense.
The story of the destruction of the media is well known but some of the details are underappreciated:
* Individual articles are now the fundamental unit. They are promoted on social media then carefully tracked and evaluated. A hot story get orders of magnitude more clicks/revenue so they focus on trying to produce that an ignore everything else. This narrows the scope tremendously.
* Reporting is no longer a profession but more like a calling similar to the arts. The demands are too high and the pay is too low. It takes sustained outside support (rich family, spouse, sponsor) for most reporters to make it today. Many reporters have strong ideological motivations which substitute for pay but can compromise reporting.
For the reader the bottom line is the news media is no longer the neutral source of information we used to think it was. First it is now highly biased to provoke a response, usually emotional and often just to the headline (clickbait), at this point the job is done, the ad is sold. Second the people writing and editing the stories have strong beliefs coloring their selection and content.
The result is the article contains biased, incomplete and inaccurate information. And once you let that bad information into your head it is very hard to unlearn it. You often know less after reading a news article these days!
...
Fascinating developments. Matt Taibbi has done some good reporting on this but it is typically covered very superficially by media critics. There are a few books I have yet to read but pointers to thoughtful analysis would be appreciated. This is a complex and still evolving issue.
A lot of good writing advice in this memo: The key person to think about is the reader. People generally read only one screen and SELDOM read more than two screens. (A screen typically is around 300 words.) A long story on a complicated topic can save readers time if it replaces the need to read a lot of short ones. Readers either want to have a quick piece of information or something that justifies the longer read.…
I'm not sure the evidence supports that. The online tech pubs I write for (not news stories), posts/articles tend to be in the 800-1200 word range. Shorter than that and it's hard to get into a topic. Longer than that and people stop reading (as supported by data). If you need 3,000 words, the advice is to turn it into a series.
Shorter may be OK if you're just communicating a fact and no background is needed. Although standard journalism practice would be to hit the new stuff in the first few paragraphs and add more content in inverted pyramid style that provides context.